7 - Scoring of the alternatives for the Integrated Evaluation of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment pCITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 21, 2007
AGENDA TITLE: Scoring of the Altematives for the Integrated Evaluation of Boulder
Reservoir Water Treahnent Plant (BRWTP) Source Water Protection and Treatment
Improvements.
PREPARING DEPARTMENT:
Robert E. Williams - Director of Public Work for Utilities
Anne Noble - Utilities Project Manager
Bob Hazberg - Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator
Bret Linenfelser - Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator
Randy Crittenden - Water Treatment Coordinator
Cazol Ellinghouse - Water Resources Coordinator
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: WRAB consensus on scoring and ranking of alternatives.
FISCAL IMPACT: The 2007-2012 CIP includes $250,000 in 2007 to evaluate, $500,000 in
2008 to design and $25,000,000 to construct a pipeline from Carter Lake to the BRWTP
and/or provide long term treatment faciliTy improvements.
Also included in the six-year CIP is funding to evaluate, design and construct ($100,000 in
2007, $300,000 in 2008 and $3,000,000 in 2009) mid-term treatment plant improvements. In
2007, $250,000 was also budgeted to provide source water protection improvements along
the Boulder Feeder Canal.
PURPOSE: This memorandum provides information on the revised scoring of alternatives for
the Integrated Evaluation of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (BRWTP) Source Water
Protection and Treatment Improvements using both the staff criteria, as well as WRAB's criteria.
Staff presented non-economic performance scores, along with net present costs and operations
and maintenance costs for nine alternatives at the April 16, 2007 WRAB meeting. These
altematives paired proposed treatment processes with three source water options; continued use
of both the Feeder Canal and the Boulder Reservoir, year-round use of the Boulder Reservoir,
eliminating the use of the Boulder Feeder Canal and construction of the Carter Lake Pipeline. In
order to simplify the evaluation process, the number of alternatives has been reduced to six,
AGENDA ITEM # Page 1
assuming that the BRWTP would either continue to operate using both the Boulder Reservoir
and the Feeder Canal or the Carter Lake Pipeline would be constructed. The performance
scoring and net present costs differences between the alternatives that included the continued use
of the Boulder Feeder Canal and the elimination of the Boulder Feeder Canal were minimal. The
alternatives have been simplified to only include options that consider the use of both of these
source waters.
All of the alternatives assume that chlorine dioxide will be constructed as a mid-term
improvement. The alternatives that will be brought forward include:
• Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir with no additional long-term treatment
improvements
• Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir with Ultraviolet Treatment
• Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir with Ultraviolet Treatment and Granular
Activated Cazbon
• Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir with Membrane Filtration/Ultr~ltration
• Boulder Feeder Canal and Boulder Reservoir with Advanced Oxidation Process (Ozone)
• Carter Lake Pipeline
Relative scores for each of these alternatives were calculated by Black & Veatch Consulting
Engineers based on the Criteria, including economic criteria, established by Kelly DiNatale and
the weighting factors provided by three WRAB members. These alternatives were also re-
evaluated using the staff criteria and weighting. A sensitivity analysis was also completed using
the staff's criteria, but excluding the TDS/Sulfate criteria in order to determine whether that
criteria affected the relative ranking of the alternative selected.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will respond to WItAB questions and comments regazding the material provided, as well as any
further questions on the draft report presented at the Mazch 19, 2007 WRAB meeting. Staffrequests
WRt1B come to consensus on the scoring and the ranking of the alternatives. A final report, along
with the peer review, is anticipated to be presented to the WRAB at the June or July WRAB meeting.
A final recommendation on the selected alternative will be requested from WRAB at that time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Revised Table 6-1 Performance Scores
Attachment B: Performance Scores without TDS & Sulfates
Attachment C: WRAB Criteria and Objectives
Attachment D: Performance Scores using WRAB criteria
AGENDA ITEM # Page 2
~ . City of Boulder BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study Draft
Table 6-1 Attachment A
BRWTF Perfortnance Criteria Weights and Water Delivery Alternative Scores
Model Weights Altemative Ranking Against Criteria
Decision Statement Criteria Weights Priorities Alt 7 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alternatives:
Select a Multi-Barrier Water Delive Pathogens 10 0.056 2 10 10 10 3 6 Alt 1: BFC/BR w/ CI02
Approach for BRWTF Disinfection Byproducts 7 0.039 9 9 9 9 10 9 Alt 2: BFCBR w/ CI02 and UV
Organic Micropollutants 6 0.033 2 3 7 2 10 8 Alt 3: BFC/BR w/ CI02, GAC and UV
Inorganic Micropollutants 4 0.022 6 6 6 6 8 10 Alt 4: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and MF/UF
Manganese 6 0.033 8 8 8 8 8 10 Alt 5: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and AOP
nd Odor
T
t 6 0
033 5 5 7 5 10 8 Alt 6: CLP w/ CI02
as
e a
TDS and Sulfate 6 .
0.033 3 3 3 3 3 10
Consistency 6 0.033 2 2 2 2 2 ~~
Water Rights Yield 10 0.056 5 5 5 5 5 10
Portfolio Flexibility 8 0.044 5 5 5 5 5 10
Availability 9 0.050 5 5 5 5 5 10
Worker Safety 10 0.056 10 7 6 6 6 10
Process Flexibiliry 6 0.033 6 8 8 8 10 6
Process Reliability 9 0.050 7 6 5 6 6 10
Process Redundancy 9 0.050 6 8 9 6 10 10
Maintenance 3 0.017 10 7 4 8 6 10
Staffing 3 0.017 8 7 7 9 5 10
Residuals Disposal 5 0.028 7 7 5 5 5 10
Acute Contamination 10 0.056 3 3 3 3 3 10
Chronic Contamination 10 0.056 2 5 7 5 8 10
Adaptability to Change 8 0.044 2 5 7 5 8 10
Infrastructure Vulnerability 2 0.011 4 4 4 4 4 10
Consumable Delivery/Usage 1 0.006 10 8 5 4 4 10
Adjacent Land Use Compatibility 8 0.044 4 4 4 4 3 10
System-Wide Water Uniformity 3 0.017 3 3 3 3 3 10
Construction 1 0.006 10 7 4 7 6 4
Consumer Confidence 8 0.044 6 7 10 7 7 10
Permitting 1 0.006 10 8 6 8 $ 6
Energy Requirements 5 0.028 5 3 3 4 2 10
Alternative Scores 0.512 0.573 0.606 0.554 0.603 0.942
CHAPTER 6- MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION s-2
^ . City of Boulder BRWTF Mu/ti-Barrier Approach Study Draft
Table 6-1* - Attachment B
BRWTF Pertormance Criteria Weights and Water Delivery Alternative Scores Without Conside ring TDS and Sulfate
Model Weights Alternative Ranking Against Criteria
Decision Statement Criteria Weights Priorities Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Alternatives:
Select a Multi-Barrier Water Delive Pathogens 10 0.058 2 10 10 10 3 6 Alt 1: BFC/BR w/ CI02
Approach for BRWTF Disinfection Byproducts 7 0.041 9 9 9 9 10 9 Alt 2: BFCBR w/ C102 and UV
Organic Micropollutants 6 0.035 2 3 7 2 10 8 Alt 3: BFC/BR w/ CI02, GAC and UV
Inorganic Micropollutants 4 0.023 6 6 6 6 8 10 Alt 4: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and MF/UF
Manganese 6 0.035 8 8 8 8 8 10 Alt 5: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and AOP
Taste and Odor 6 0.035 5 5 7 5 10 8 Alt 6: CLP w/ Ci02
TDS and Sulfate 3 3 3 3 3 10
Consistency 6 0.035 2 2 2 2 2 10
Water Rights Yield 10 0.058 5 5 5 5 5 10
Portfolio Flexibility 8 0.047 5 5 5 5 5 10
Availability 9 0.053 5 5 5 5 5 10
Worker Safety 10 0.058 10 7 6 6 6 10
Process Flexibility 6 0.035 6 8 8 8 10 6
Process Reliability 9 0.053 7 6 5 6 6 10
Process Redundancy 9 0.053 6 8 9 6 10 10
Maintenance 3 0.018 10 7 4 8 6 10
Staffing 3 0.018 8 7 7 9 5 10
Residuals Disposal 5 0.029 7 7 5 5 5 10
Acute Contamination 10 0.058 3 3 3 3 3 10
Chronic Contaminatio~ 10 0.058 2 5 7 5 8 10
Adaptability to Change 8 0.047 2 5 7 5 8 10
Infrastructure Vulnerability 2 0.012 4 4 4 4 4 10
Consumable Delivery/Usage 1 0.006 10 8 5 4 4 10
Adjacent Land Use Compatibility 8 0.047 4 4 4 4 3 10
System-Wide Water Un'rformity 3 3 3 3 3 10
Construction 1 0.006 10 7 4 7 6 4
ConsumerConfidence 8 0.047 6 7 10 7 7 1~
Permitting 1 0.006 10 8 6 8 8 6
Energy Requirements 5 0.029 5 3 3 4 2 10
Altemalive Scores 0.523 0.588 0.622 0.568 0.619 0.939
CHAPTER 6- MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH PERFORMANCE EVALUAT/ON s"2
~~ Boulder Reservoir Water Supply and Treatment Suggested
Objectives
Objec4~s DescnpUon Example Criteria Notes
What are the relative capkal costs?
How do costs chenge ff other partkipants drop
out7
Comparettve net present value cost of NPV of altemative (capitel end What are the expected staff reduclions or
Manage Costs consVucUon and O&M usfng same cost O&M
~ increases?
basis and sourca for comparison How do fhe 08M cosLS compare7
Are the cost estimates made using similar unit
costs and engineertng/contingency facotrs to
ensure an "apples to apples" comparison7
M~imize water yield and system raliabilky Qualitative measure of overell What is the firtn yield of Boulder's system
Maximae Weter Yield and given the potential for system feilures such
as contamination of a water source, climale system reliabiliry, considering
l under various hydrology and climate change
System ReliabflNy
change, lim'ded exchange potential, etc. ocations of source of supply and
Neatment, including seleded scenarios?
How dependent is yieltl upon exchanges lo
Factor in the location of firm yield supplies criteria from Table 2 Betasso to deliverwatert
with Ne abilily to diredty treat the water.
How many pumps and other machanipl '
SimplHy Operatlons Provide for ease of system operations Use selected criteria from Table systams are Involved?
. 3 Have we improved ar reduced ease of
operetions and worker safety7
Abil'dy to consistenUy deliver
t
lk
ti Maximize the abllriy to meet Safe Drinking
f
in reltabiliry
W
t
A
t
l
tl
[
rt ~ated waterthat pn meet vrater
Qual(ty standards given potential Can the source water be aSectivery treatetl to
~nabi
meet SDWA
t
d
d
7
ng wa
er qua
y
Ensure mee a
er
C
regu
a
ons,
ac
o
ng
~ariations in supply end potential y
s
an
ar
s
,
regula6ons oi each source water or treatment 6artler
human or mechenical error. How robust are the treatment processes to
under potential source water condidons
InGude criteria from Table 1 that Potential upsets in source water qualHy?
involve SDWA primary standards
Qualttatfve measure based on
Provide for high qualfty waterthat will TDS, sulfates, potentiai Tor teste Are ail customers in Bouider receiving
~
Provide euceptional treated GOnslstenUy meet all customer estheUc and odor avents end likelihood of acceptsble quality water?
water quality thet exceeds e~eclations and adtlress unregulated other unregulated eonteminants. Whet is the potentlal for customer complalnts
standards ~ntaminants that may or not be regulated Include crReria from Teble 1 that gNen poor (rather than different) qualriy water
in the future orvrould be at very low levels atldress SDWA secondary that meets drinking water stantlartls
on an infrequent basis slantlartls antl selected criteAa Are tlie staif quality goals mat?
from Tables 4& 5
Qualkatfve measure based on What are the num6er of acres of wetlands
Protection or enhancement of lantl and total net projed impacLs to
,~ytlands, reducing basin-wide disturbad?
Have wa enhanced the environment7
Maximize environmental water hahitats and resources and raducing
Pollution impacts through Have we eliminated Dollution or merey
enhancement adstlng and future pollution sources
elimination of pollutlon sources or passed the pollution on to otheB, induding
~ basinwide
redudions through best ~~ens and other users of Boulder Reservoi(7
management preUlces Can we make the altemetive carbon neutrel or
reduca tha carbon balance?
Qualitative measure based on an
Maxlmize acceptabflity by limiting evaluation of the oppostion to be Are we impecling neighbors during
Maximize Acceptabil'ity disturbences antl other impacts to expec[ed from state and local constructlon or operations7
netghbors, eommuters, etc. govemments and other Afe commutera effected during construdion?
interested organkations
A~tr~c~ r~ ~-r G
Boulder Reservoir Water Supply and Treatment Suggested
Objectives
Objectives Dascription Exampfe Crlleria Notes ~.,,
Do we need Larimer or Boulder County
permits?
W~~I Boulder County place I'imits on hours of
Need for 7041, 4o4 or other local, state or Num6er of permitting agenGes consW ction increastng consVuction costs as
Timeliness/Ease of Permitting Tederel perml[s, abitlty to deliver project by Involved In epprovel happened with Longmont pipeline projec[?
the time the are needed
Y Is a 404 pemtR requiiad?
' How Is proJeU feasibAity impactetl if other
patticipants drop oul?
/~lrRC-H r'1 ~n11" ~
~ ~
~
City of Boulder BRWTF Mu/ti-Barrier Approach Study Draft
BRWfF Multi-BarrierApproach Decision Analysis Summary
Alternative Decision Scores
WRAB Member~'~ Decision Scores
City Staff~2~
No Processes A B C
1 BFC/BR w/ CI02 0.693 0.711 0.696 0.512
2 BFC/BR w! CI02 and UV 0.668 0.675 0.657 0.573
3 BFC/BR w/ CI02, GAC and UV 0.579 0.554 0.557 0.606
4 BFC/BR w/ CI02 and MF/UF 0.550 0.543 0.575 0.554
5 BFC/BR w/ CI02 and AOP 0.714 0.707 0.718 0.603
6 CLP w/ CI02 0.882 0.882 0.896 0.942
Notes:
~'~WRAB Decision Model
~Z~City Staff Decision Model
ATfACHi`~.E~'T D
CHAPTER 6- MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 6-1
r~
~m City of Boulder BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study
WRAB Performance Criteria Weights and Water Delivery Alternative Scores
WRAB Member A
~ ~ ~ Model Weights1O ~ Alternative Rankin9 Against Criteria"' ~
Water Yield and Reliability 6 0.214 5 5 5 5 5 10
~perations 0 0.000 10 7 3 5 6 10
Primary/Enforceable Standards 7 0.250 7 8 9 7 10 9
Secondary/Aestheitc Standards 3 0.107 5 5 5 5 8 10
Environmental Enhancement 4 0.143 5 4 4 1 5 10
Acceptability 2 0.071 10 9 7 8 8 8
Permittinp 2 0.071 10 10 10 10 10 5
Assigned by WRAB Member
~Assigned by B&V based on WRAB scoring instructions
6 - MULTI-BARRIER
2: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and UV
3: BFC/BR w/ CI02, GAC and UV
4: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and MF/UF
5: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and AOP
6' CLP w/ CI02
PERFORMANCE EVALUA
Drai
~
6-
r~
~r~~ City of Boulder BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study
WRAB Member B
WRAB Performance Criteria Weights and Water Delivery Alternative Scores
Alternative
Water Delivery
Yield and Reliability
ary/Enforceable Standards
indary/Aestheitc Standards
~onmental Enhancement
Assigned by WRAB Member
'Assiqned bv B&V based on WRAB
5 0.179 10 8
5 0.179 5 5
0 0.000 10 7
7 0.250 7 8
3 0.107 5 5
4 0.143 5 4
3 0.107 10 9
1 0.036 10 10
instructions
nst
5 5 5 10
3 5 6 10
9 7 10 9
5 5 8 10
4 1 5 10
7 8 8 S
10 10 10 5
Dra
1: BFC/BR w/ CI02
2: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and UV
3: BFC/BR w/ CI02, GAC and UV
4: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and MF/UF
5: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and AOP
6: CLP w/ CI02
TfACNr~6~r
^ ~ City of Bou/der BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study
WRAB Performance Criteria Weights and Water Delivery Alternative Scores
WRAB Member C
I I Model Weis~hts"' I Altemative Ranking Against Criteria"' ~
Delivery Strategy
Yield and Reliability
eable Standards
theitc Standards
Enhancement
by WRAB Member
bv B&V based on WRAB
3 0.107 10 8 1 5 5 7
7 0.250 5 5 5 5 5 10
3 0.107 10 7 3 5 6 10
5 0.179 7 8 9 7 10 9
6 0214 5 5 5 5 8 10
1 0.036 5 4 4 1 5 10
0 0.000 10 9 7 8 8 8
3 0.107 10 10 10 10 10 5
instructions
2: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and UV
3: BFC/BR w/ CI02, GAC and UV
4: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and MF/UF
5: BFC/BR w/ CI02 and AOP
6: CLP w/ CI02
Dr
T
6-
^ m City of Bou/der BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study
WRAB Decision Model
Alternatives Scoring Summary Tables
Manage Costs
NPV Score
Draft
Alternative Treatment
Strate Score Comments: NPV Costs
1 CIOz 10 $520 10
2 CIOZ + UV 8 $9.28 8
3 CIOi+GAC+UV 1 $5341 1
4 CIOZ+MF/UF 5 $29.25 5
5 CIOZ+AOP 5 $26.94 5
g CLP+CIOz 7 $17.12 7
NPV. Net present value including capital, O&M, and financing
Yield and System Reliability
Reliability Yield
Alternative Treatment
Strete Score Comments: Reliability and Yield
1 CIOZ 5 -4 -1
2 CIOZ+UV 5 -4 -1
3 CIOZ+GAC+UV 5 -4 -1
4 CIOZ + MFNF 5 -4 -1
5 CIOz+AOP 5 -4 -1
g CLP+CIOZ 10 0 0
Base Score 10
BFC/BR -4 -1
CLP 0 0
Reliability: Redundancy of water sources to BRWTF
Yield: Availability of Winter storage in Carter Lake is superior to Boulder Reservoir
A
U
CHAPTER6-
~ ~
~
City of Bou/der BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study
System Operetions
Processes Equipment Consumables
Draft
Alternative Se~ment Score Comments: Additlonal processes, energized equipment, consumables
1 CIOz 10 0 0 0
2 CIOZ+UV 7 -1 -1 -1
3 CIOz+GAC+UV 3 -2 -2 3
4 CIOz + MF/UF 5 -1 -2 -2
5 CIOZ+AOP 6 -1 -2 -1
g CLP+CIOz 10 0 0 0
UV -1 -1 -1
GAC -1 -1 -2
MFIUF -1 -2 -2
AOP -1 -2 -1
Primary Standards
Barriers
Alternative Treatment
Strete S~o~ Comments: Primary Standards, source consistency, robustness
1 CIOz 7 6.5 / \
`n
-~/
2 CIO2+uv 8 ~~5 Score=
x10
"a""`
3 CIOz+GAC+~JV 9 9.0 ~Nba,,,« -0~
4 CIOz + MF/UF 7 6.5
~Eemer # barriers in alternaLve
5 CIOZ +AOP 10 9 5 Ne.,,,,~ max # barriers in alternatives
g CLP+CIOz 9 8.5
Barriers: Number of primary contaminant barriers from Figures in B&V Draft Report Chapter 5
~nACHrn~nrr p
CHAPTER 6- MULTI-BARRIER APPROACH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 6-6
r. 0
~
City of Boulder BRWTF Mu/ti-Barrier Approach Study
Secondary/Aesthetie Standards
Barriers
Draft
Alternative Treatment
Strate S~o~ Comments:
1 CIOz 5 2.5 /
lnb
7
-~~
2 CIOz+UV 5 z.5 x 10
SCOTe=
en
r
3 CIOZ+GAC+W 5 3A ~Nna~,;~.-~~
4 CIOz + MF/UF 5 Z.5 ne.,,,,~ # barriers in alternative
5 CIOz +AOP 8 4.5 Ne,,,,,~ max # barriers in alternatives
g CLP+CIOz 10 5.5
Barriers: Number of secondary contaminant barriers from Figures in B&V Drak Report Chapter 5
Enviromm~etal Enhancement Energy Score
Alternative T~~tment
Strate Score Comments: Carbon Footprint Difference
t CIOz 5 $22,750 5
2 CIOZ + UV 4 $28,663 4
3 CIOZ+GAC+UV 4 $31,605 4
4 CIOZ+MF/UF 1 $43,763 1
5 CIOZ+AOP 5 $22,750 5
g CLP+CIOz ~0 $0 10
GHMEn1T D
CHAPTER 6 - MULTI-BARRIER
^ ~ City of Boulder BRWTF Multi-Barrier Approach Study Draft
Public Acceotanee
Const Oos
Alternative Treatment
Strete Score Comments: Operetions consideres chemical delivery and usage
1 CIOz 10 0 0
2 CIOZ + UV 9 -1 0
3 CIOz+GAC+UV 7 -2 -1
4 CIOz+MF/UF 8 -1 -1
5 CIOz+AOP 8 -1 -1
g CLP+CIOz 8 -2 0
Const Ops
Permittina
UV -1 0
GAC -1 -1
MPNF -1 -1
AOP -t -1
CLP -2 0
Boulder C Larimer C 404 Others
Alternative Treatment
Strete Score Comments
t CIOZ 10 0 0 0 0
2 CIOZ+UV 10 0 0 0 0
3 CI02+GAC+UV 10 0 0 0 0
4 CIOz + MF/UF 10 0 0 0 0
5 CIOz+AOP 10 0 0 0 0
g CLP + CIOz 5 -2 -2 -1 0
Boulder County Permit -2
Larimer County Permit -2
404 Permit -1
Other Participants Impacts 0
f1TfRCHM6NT D
ALUATION 6-8